Considering
himself a conservative — maybe even a neoconservative
— Michael Rubin set out to educate his progressive nemeses about the pitfalls
of the would-be multipolar world he says they are advocating.
To teach them a lesson they'll never forget, he wrote: “There's
Nothing Progressive about a Multipolar World,” an article that also came under
the subtitle: “Recent events should give progressives pause about what a
multipolar world means.” It was published on January 5, 2019 in The National
Interest.
Rubin
dedicated a good part of the article to the listing of progressives who spoke
about the subject at one time or another, and had good things to say about the
prospect of creating a fully functional multipolar world. They were such names
as Madeleine Albright, William Burns, Nisha Desai Biswal, Joe Biden, Hillary
Clinton, Barack Obama, Jean-Marie Guehenno, and a number of organizations that
took a stand on the issue. Here is the essence of what they said collectively:
“A
multipolar world of diversity and creativity among cultures, nations, and
economies is the world we can build, one that will enrich our lives, and
thrives on habits of peace and creative competition. The interconnectedness of
human society can fuel economic, social and political change across the globe
ever more quickly. A multipolar world in which nations make common cause of our
common challenges. We welcome that”.
Even
though Andrew Bacevich forcefully argued that, “the multipolar global order is
already well underway,” Michael Rubin went on to attack the idea of a fully
functional multipolar world by discrediting the idea, and highlighting the
scary negatives he says it will engender. Here is the essence of what he said
in that regard:
“As
China, Russia, Iran, and Turkey challenge the post-World War II international
order, their behavior reflects the reality of what a multipolar world truly
means. Leaders of international and multilateral organizations will have to
subordinate themselves to the hardline Chinese Communist Party. Russia's
protection of Bashar al-Assad signals the end of a post-World War I consensus.
Turkish president, Erdogan wants to reshape the post-World War II international
order. He waged ethnic cleansing against Syrian Kurds, defended genocide in
Sudan and let foreign fighters into the Islamic State. Moscow, Beijing, Tehran,
or Ankara will not make the world a more peaceful place or respect the regime
of human rights”.
And
despite acknowledging the reality that America's own conduct was less than
exemplary in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and may not have been
when George W. Bush invaded Iraq in the twentieth century, Michael Rubin ended
the article by making this appeal: “It is time American and European
progressives recognize [that lesson] for, the stakes are far greater than
simply American power”.
Well,
suppose they accept his premise and recognize whatever the lesson he's teaching
may amount to, then what? Is Michael Rubin suggesting that the progressives in
Europe and America should suddenly embrace the doctrine that the
neoconservatives (neocons) formulated, and had George W. Bush verbalize it for
them? Does he want to tell each and everyone in the world: You’re either with
us or you’re against us?
Does
Michael Rubin want to see progressives on both continents articulate what the
Republicans in America under Donald Trump, have rejected in favor of building
their own America, thus put an end to the bad habit of wasting the young lives
of their countrymen, as well as the wealth that is yet to be created by future
generations? For what purpose does he want progressives to do all that? Is it to
destroy the lives and accomplishments of other peoples in other lands? Is this
such a great idea?
Michael
Rubin did the analysis of the situation in a manner that leads the readers to
ask those questions, and reach the impractical conclusions that go nowhere. He
engaged in fruitless haggling because he did not have the courage to pronounce
those conclusions himself and discuss their implications.
Had
he tried to do so, he would have been confronted with the choice of either
reigniting the Cold War and see it go on steroid, or describing a creative way
by which to prevent humanity from going multipolar without risking a World War
that has all the elements of making the previous two look like child's play.
There
can be no doubt that Michael Rubin must have thought of all that. But when he
failed to hit on a creative solution to the theoretical problem that wasn’t
there to begin with, he copped out and put the burden on the readers. He did so
by forcing them to look for answers where none can be found. Not nice, Michael
Rubin!